A post is rapidly circulating on social media featuring Abhijeet Dipke, founder of the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), making strong remarks against Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar. The viral post claims that Dipke asked Gyanesh Kumar to become Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s “peon” and clean his house instead of allegedly “flattering” him, and demanded his resignation within 48 hours.
The matter is not limited to the statement itself. It is also linked to the ongoing debate surrounding the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, changes in voter lists, and alleged objections raised by two Election Commissioners regarding certain decisions of the Election Commission.
To understand the issue properly, it is important to distinguish between Abhijeet Dipke’s allegations and officially established facts.
What Does the Viral Post Claim ?
On September 24, 2026, at a press conference in New Delhi, CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke demanded the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.
According to reports, Dipke said that if Gyanesh Kumar wanted to “flatter” Prime Minister Narendra Modi so much, he should become the Prime Minister’s “peon” and clean his house, rather than continue serving as Chief Election Commissioner.
Dipke also said that if Gyanesh Kumar did not resign within 48 hours, his party would launch a nationwide protest and organise a demonstration in Delhi along the lines of “Jantar Mantar 2.0.”
Therefore, the basic claim regarding the 48-hour ultimatum and the strong remarks is supported by news reports. However, the other allegations made by Dipke should not automatically be treated as established facts on the same basis.
Who Is Gyanesh Kumar ?
According to the official website of the Election Commission of India (ECI), Gyanesh Kumar is the 26th Chief Election Commissioner of India. He assumed office as CEC on February 19, 2025.
The current official ECI list also includes Dr. Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Dr. Vivek Joshi as Election Commissioners.
According to the ECI, the Election Commission is a constitutional institution responsible for administering elections to the Lok Sabha, State Legislative Assemblies, and the offices of the President and Vice-President of India.
Therefore, while examining the political allegations against Gyanesh Kumar, it is important to note that he currently holds the constitutional position of Chief Election Commissioner.
What Is SIR and Why Has the Controversy Grown ?
At the centre of this controversy is the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
The purpose of SIR is to review and verify electoral rolls. In Bihar, the ECI initiated the SIR process in June 2025.
The Commission stated that as of June 24, 2025, Bihar had approximately 7.89 crore electors, and the process of collecting Enumeration Forms was initiated to verify the eligibility of voters.
The Bihar SIR exercise continued from June 24 to September 30, 2025. According to the ECI/PIB, the final electoral roll contained approximately 7.42 crore electors.
According to the Commission’s figures, around 65 lakh names were excluded from the draft electoral roll, while approximately 21.53 lakh eligible voters were added during the process.
However, an important distinction is necessary here. Removal of a name from a draft electoral roll does not automatically mean that a person’s right to vote has been permanently terminated.
The SIR process also included mechanisms for claims, objections and the inclusion of eligible names. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to conclude solely from the number of names removed from the draft list that all those individuals were permanently excluded from the electoral roll.
What Is the Report About 14 Objections Within the Election Commission ?
The controversy took another turn following an investigation published by The Indian Express on September 23, 2026.
According to the report, Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had recorded written objections on at least 14 occasions over a period of approximately 10 months concerning certain decisions and orders of the Election Commission.
The issues reportedly included voter registration, the addition and deletion of names, Form 6, management of electoral data, and the centralisation of technical systems related to electoral rolls.
This report subsequently became one of the grounds cited by Abhijeet Dipke and other critics while raising questions about CEC Gyanesh Kumar.
However, the positions of the various parties need to be clearly distinguished.
What Is the Election Commission’s Official Position ?
In response to reports concerning the internal objections, the Election Commission said that different views, observations and suggestions within the Commission are part of the normal decision-making process.
The ECI also maintained that major decisions taken during the previous 10 months, including decisions related to SIR, were made with the approval of all three Election Commissioners.
The Commission did not deny the existence of the notes or objections; rather, it presented a different interpretation of their significance and meaning.
Therefore, saying that “14 objections were recorded” and saying that “the 14 objections proved that all Election Commission decisions were illegal or unconstitutional” are two entirely different claims.
The available information provides a basis for the first statement, while the second would require separate legal or judicial confirmation.
What Other Demands Did Abhijeet Dipke Make ?
According to reports, the CJP did not limit its demands to the resignation of the CEC.
The organisation also called for an independent investigation into decisions related to SIR, demanded that upcoming elections be stopped, and sought changes to the 2023 law concerning the appointment of Election Commissioners.
The CJP also alleged that a large number of names had been removed from electoral rolls.
According to a report by The Indian Express, the CJP claimed that more than 13 crore names had been excluded from draft electoral rolls across various states and Union Territories during the SIR exercise.
However, this figure needs to be understood carefully. Names excluded from draft electoral rolls and names permanently removed from the final electoral roll are not necessarily the same category.
Therefore, presenting the figure directly as meaning that “the voting rights of 13 crore people were terminated” could be misleading.
Have Abhijeet Dipke’s Allegations Been Proven ?
This is the most important fact-checking point.
Dipke has made serious political and institutional allegations against Gyanesh Kumar. He has claimed that the functioning of the Election Commission is affecting the democratic process and having an impact on voters’ rights.
However, these are allegations made by Dipke and the CJP. They should not be presented as independently established facts.
At the same time, media reports concerning written objections by two Election Commissioners do exist. The ECI has not denied the existence of those notes, but the Commission maintains that such discussions were part of the institutional decision-making process and that the final decisions were taken unanimously.
Therefore, the most factual way to describe the situation at present is:
Reports have emerged that written objections were raised regarding certain decisions within the ECI, while the Commission has maintained that its final decisions were taken unanimously.
What Is True in the Viral Post ?
On September 24, 2026, CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke demanded the resignation of CEC Gyanesh Kumar and issued a 48-hour ultimatum. He also made personal and political remarks about Gyanesh Kumar in connection with Prime Minister Narendra Modi. These statements have been reported by various news organisations.
The controversy is taking place against the backdrop of the wider debate over SIR and the functioning of the Election Commission.
Reports have also emerged that two Election Commissioners recorded 14 objections over a period of approximately 10 months, while the ECI has stated that such discussions are part of the institutional process and that its decisions, including those related to SIR, were taken with the concurrence of all three Election Commissioners.
Therefore, the issue can most appropriately be understood at three levels:
1. Abhijeet Dipke’s 48-hour ultimatum and strong remarks — supported by news reports.2. The CJP’s allegations concerning SIR and the functioning of the ECI — political allegations, not established facts.3. The report of 14 internal objections — a matter reported through media investigations, while the ECI has maintained that its final decisions were taken unanimously.
To avoid misinformation in the future, the most important thing is not to present allegations made by a political leader or organisation as official facts and not to equate the removal of names from a draft electoral roll with the automatic and permanent termination of voting rights.
This distinction is essential for presenting the entire controversy in a factual, responsible and accurate manner.
Social Plugin